You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this.

All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vague speculation.

It's not vague speculation when there's obvious holes in the narrative being presented. I'm inclined to assume corporate is in the wrong here but I'm not going to blindly accept accusations when it's clear that key details have been left out.